log in
register

The Pussy Pass…

Viewing 13 replies - 16 through 28 (of 28 total)
1 2
  • Author
    Replies
  • July 26, 2019 at 8:32 am #946743
    0
    Jackson
    Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:
    FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
    …and what is it with the OP’s anger towards women in general?  It’s irrational.

    Oh, dear.  

    Lazy, immature ‘thinking’.    

    I am absolutely in favour of equality between men and women.

    Which is why I oppose feminism. 

    Such a cringeworthy take

    July 26, 2019 at 8:02 am #946741
    0
    Legs_Eleven_Worcester
    FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
    …and what is it with the OP’s anger towards women in general?  It’s irrational.

    Oh, dear.  

    Lazy, immature ‘thinking’.    

    I am absolutely in favour of equality between men and women.

    Which is why I oppose feminism. 

    July 26, 2019 at 7:50 am #946739
    0
    FluffyKittenofTindalos

    …and what is it with the OP

    …and what is it with the OP’s anger towards women in general?  It’s irrational.

     

    (Unlike my distrust of petrolsexuals of all genders…that’s just a rational assessment of reality)

    July 26, 2019 at 7:47 am #946737
    0
    FluffyKittenofTindalos

    The fact that people can

    The fact that people can suddenly have such episodes is another reason why it should not be considered normal for people to operate deadly machinery in public places.   Certainly there’s no reason why motorised vehicles should be capable of such speeds.

    July 26, 2019 at 7:22 am #946735
    0
    Mungecrundle

    mattsccm wrote:

    mattsccm wrote:

    The problem in many cases is that some form of illness is seen as an excuse.  That is so wrong. If a person has been killed then the perpetrator should be punished accordingly. Any mental state should not be considered. they have still killed. Indeed anyone who has killed when not sound of mind should have a more severe punishment as they obviously don’t have the “normal” state of mind that actually stops most people killing> No sympathy, just consequences. 

    We cannot live in a world where everybody is gievn the benefit of the doubt or compassion.

    Except it is so easy to imagine a number of scenarios where the person is in no way responsible for their actions. 2 examples that spring to mind would be:

    Bad reactions to pharmaceuticals, either prescription or administered illegally by a third party.

    Having received a brain injury or suffering a brain tumour that causes a change of behaviour.

    I’d far sooner live in a world where benefit of the doubt and compassion come before revenge. Though of course this has to be tied to appropriate treatment options and appropriate steps to protect society where risks can be identified in advance.

    July 26, 2019 at 6:52 am #946733
    0
    hawkinspeter

    There’s not enough info in

    There’s not enough info in the report to judge, but I’m concerned about what steps have been taken to ensure that she can’t suffer another bout of mania and cause another incident. It’s not so much about extracting punishment but more about protecting the public.

    Was she declared unfit to drive for a number of years in a similar fashion to other illnesses with a proper assessment before allowing her a retest?

    July 26, 2019 at 6:20 am #946731
    0
    mattsccm

    The problem in many cases is

    The problem in many cases is that some form of illness is seen as an excuse.  That is so wrong. If a person has been killed then the perpetrator should be punished accordingly. Any mental state should not be considered. they have still killed. Indeed anyone who has killed when not sound of mind should have a more severe punishment as they obviously don’t have the “normal” state of mind that actually stops most people killing> No sympathy, just consequences. 

    We cannot live in a world where everybody is gievn the benefit of the doubt or compassion.

    July 26, 2019 at 3:43 am #946729
    0
    Mungecrundle

    Had to accept something
    Had to accept something similar a few years ago when a dear work colleague was killed in horrific circumstances by her partner whilst suffering a psychotic episode. In that case a very long and possibly permanent stay at a secure institution for treatment was the correct outcome but still difficult at times to think that somehow justice was evaded.

    Cannot comment on this particular “crazy whilst in charge of a motor vehicle” case, but I can absolutely sympathise with the bereaved. I’d personally find it very difficult to see that woman behind the wheel again but I’m pretty sure the ensuing charge of destruction of property by arson would have a solid defence of diminished responsibility.

    July 25, 2019 at 7:11 pm #946727
    0
    stomec

    Sriracha wrote:

    Sriracha wrote:
    stomec wrote:

    Xenophon2 wrote:
    The problem is that it’s hard to digest that apparently at time ‘X’ a person can appear sane, at ‘X+1hour’ she goes on a rampage, kills a couple of persons, is admitted to an institution and a couple of months later, 2 psychiatrists (a discipline which I guess will be treated in 200 years with the respect currently reserved for 16th century quacks) seem to be in total agreement that at that precise time in the past, the lady was certifiably insane but that by the time the jury had to form an opinion, the traumatised soul was well enough to return home (and purchase a new car?).  I guess the family of the victims completely understands.  The saying goes that even in exact sciences a scientist stands on an island in a sea of ignorance.  Psychiatry is anything but an exact science, yet the people active in the field present it like if it’s calculus.

     

    If you read about this you will see that she was examined in hospital after the crash and her behaviour was not… Normal.  

    If you have good reason to revise the DSM or ICD criteria for mental illness you should probably be in touch with the relevant authorities. 

    Her behaviour, driving at 127mph, was not ‘normal’, by definition. At what point does criminality become automatically exculpatory by reason of being ‘not normal behaviour’? It’s catch-22 in reverse.

     

    At the point 2 psychiatrists a judge and jury, who are fully informed of the facts, make a decision. If you have evidence that she was not suffering from a mental illness, please present it!

    July 25, 2019 at 6:53 pm #946725
    0
    Sriracha

    stomec wrote:

    stomec wrote:

    Xenophon2 wrote:
    The problem is that it’s hard to digest that apparently at time ‘X’ a person can appear sane, at ‘X+1hour’ she goes on a rampage, kills a couple of persons, is admitted to an institution and a couple of months later, 2 psychiatrists (a discipline which I guess will be treated in 200 years with the respect currently reserved for 16th century quacks) seem to be in total agreement that at that precise time in the past, the lady was certifiably insane but that by the time the jury had to form an opinion, the traumatised soul was well enough to return home (and purchase a new car?).  I guess the family of the victims completely understands.  The saying goes that even in exact sciences a scientist stands on an island in a sea of ignorance.  Psychiatry is anything but an exact science, yet the people active in the field present it like if it’s calculus.

     

    If you read about this you will see that she was examined in hospital after the crash and her behaviour was not… Normal.  

    If you have good reason to revise the DSM or ICD criteria for mental illness you should probably be in touch with the relevant authorities. 

    Her behaviour, driving at 127mph, was not ‘normal’, by definition. At what point does criminality become automatically exculpatory by reason of being ‘not normal behaviour’? It’s catch-22 in reverse.

    July 25, 2019 at 4:54 pm #946723
    0
    stomec
    Xenophon2 wrote:
    The problem is that it’s hard to digest that apparently at time ‘X’ a person can appear sane, at ‘X+1hour’ she goes on a rampage, kills a couple of persons, is admitted to an institution and a couple of months later, 2 psychiatrists (a discipline which I guess will be treated in 200 years with the respect currently reserved for 16th century quacks) seem to be in total agreement that at that precise time in the past, the lady was certifiably insane but that by the time the jury had to form an opinion, the traumatised soul was well enough to return home (and purchase a new car?).  I guess the family of the victims completely understands.  The saying goes that even in exact sciences a scientist stands on an island in a sea of ignorance.  Psychiatry is anything but an exact science, yet the people active in the field present it like if it’s calculus.

     

    If you read about this you will see that she was examined in hospital after the crash and her behaviour was not… Normal.  

    If you have good reason to revise the DSM or ICD criteria for mental illness you should probably be in touch with the relevant authorities. 

    July 25, 2019 at 4:44 pm #946721
    0
    Xenophon2

    The problem is that it’s hard

    The problem is that it’s hard to digest that apparently at time ‘X’ a person can appear sane, at ‘X+1hour’ she goes on a rampage, kills a couple of persons, is admitted to an institution and a couple of months later, 2 psychiatrists (a discipline which I guess will be treated in 200 years with the respect currently reserved for 16th century quacks) seem to be in total agreement that at that precise time in the past, the lady was certifiably insane but that by the time the jury had to form an opinion, the traumatised soul was well enough to return home (and purchase a new car?).  I guess the family of the victims completely understands.  The saying goes that even in exact sciences a scientist stands on an island in a sea of ignorance.  Psychiatry is anything but an exact science, yet the people active in the field present it like if it’s calculus.

    July 25, 2019 at 4:15 pm #946719
    0
    stomec

    Eh? 

    Eh? 

    According to the article, two independent  psychiatrists, one forensic, examined her and diagnosed a recognised mental illness. 

    What is the problem here?

  • Author
    Replies
Viewing 13 replies - 16 through 28 (of 28 total)
1 2
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.